FA3 Eval Factor_20250825.docx

Factor 1: Technical/Management Approach (Functional Area 3)

SECTION L-Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents

Subfactor 1: PWS Subtask 2.7.2 Launch Services and International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Coordination for Procured Spacecraft Offerors shall provide a comprehensive narrative describing its approach in meeting requirements of PWS Subtask 2.7.2. Proposals shall include sufficient technical detail, processes and methodologies to allow the Government to assess the feasibility, adequacy and soundness for the proposed approach.

At a minimum, the proposal shall demonstrate the following:

a. The ability to launch any built Government spacecraft and provide the necessary actions to raise the spacecraft to GEO orbit and position the spacecraft in the assigned orbital slot; and

b. A plan for managing orbital slot coordination, including ITU filing ownership and ability to work with international operators to avoid harmful interference.

To receive an Acceptable rating, the proposal shall demonstrate the ability to meet the minimum requirements. Proposals that do not meet the minimum requirements will receive an Unacceptable rating under subfactor 1.

Subfactor 2: Subtask 2.7.1 – Manufacturing Maneuverable Spacecraft Offerors shall provide a comprehensive narrative describing its approach in meeting requirements of PWS Subtask 2.7.1-Manufacturing Maneuverable Spacecraft. Proposals shall include sufficient technical detail, processes and methodologies to allow the Government to assess the feasibility, adequacy and soundness for the proposed approach.

At a minimum, the proposal shall:

a. Demonstrate understanding of how the proposed spacecraft design and manufacturing approach will support integration of specified payloads.

b. Provide details on how the spacecraft design will accommodate all commercially available satellite bands and/or frequency bands reserved for Government operations, such as UHF, VHF, L, S, Ku, Ka, X and similar bands.

c. Describe how the proposed solution ensures the spacecraft can provide the required mission services, including reliability, resiliency and operational availability.

To receive an Acceptable rating, the proposal shall demonstrate the ability to meet the minimum requirements. Proposals that do not meet the minimum requirements will receive an Unacceptable rating under subfactor 2.

Subfactor 3: Corporate Experience Offerors shall provide (1) one relevant corporate experience project that demonstrates the capability in supporting the development, launch, and control of purpose-built Geostationary Orbit (GEO) satellites with the capability of supporting communication and maneuverability. The project submitted shall clearly identify the following information:

a. Program/Mission Name--project title

b. Customer/Client--name of agency or organization, point of contact

c. Contract/Task order—contract or order number; contract type, period of performance, and total contract value.

d. Scope Description—type of work performed, technical requirements, functions, or services, including support for design, development, maneuver, ground testing, etc.

e. Offeror’s Role—indicate whether the offeror served as the prime contractor, subcontractor, or teaming partner, and the percentage of work performed.

f. Relevance narrative—a brief explanation of how the experience is relevant to the requirements of the solicitation for recency, size, scope and complexity.

Recency: The dates of performance (base and option periods) Size: The contract value and the magnitude of effort performed by the offeror.

Scope: The type of work performed.

Complexity: The technical or operational difficulty of the effort, including integration, diversity of technologies or payload, communication requirements, critical mission demands, etc.

Corporate experience is limited to 2 pages and shall be submitted on Attachment X, Corporate Experience template. To receive an Acceptable rating, the project must meet all relevancy criteria defined in Section M. Proposals that do not meet the relevancy criteria will receive an Unacceptable rating under subfactor 3.

Subfactor 4: Technical Scenario PWS 2.7 Task 7 – MGEO Infrastructure Equipment The Government requires offerors to respond to the following Technical Scenario as part of the proposal submission under Factor 1-Techncal/Management Approach. This scenario is intended to evaluate the offeror’s ability to apply technical knowledge, mission planning and operational and maneuvering methodologies representative of meeting the task requirements of 2.7 Task 7 – MGEO Infrastructure Equipment.

Note: Large-angle is defined as greater than 30°

Scenario: The Government requires manufacture and support for GEO spacecraft capable of supporting large-angle (greater than 30°) orbital relocations. Describe your plan and process for designing/building GEO spacecraft for large-angle relocations, including quality assurance, mission assurance, and risk management in a narrative that includes the following:

a. Design Approach: methodology for spacecraft design to support large-angle relocation maneuvers, including integration and interface management.

b. Quality Assurance: QA processes applied throughout design, manufacturing, and integration; including testing strategies and verifications.

c. Mission Assurance: Strategies to ensure mission and operational success; including monitoring, failure detections, contingency planning.

d. Risk Management: Identification of technical, costs, and schedule risk and mitigation strategies.

Offerors shall provide a written response limited to (5) five pages. The response to subfactor 4 shall describe the offeror’s plan, approach, and methodology. Offerors shall not provide generic descriptions or responses; the submission must be specific to the scenario. Diagrams or figures may be included and count towards the page limitation.

To receive an Acceptable rating, the response to the technical scenario shall demonstrate the ability to meet the solicitation requirements. Proposals that do not meet the requirements will receive an Unacceptable rating under subfactor 4.

SECTION M-Evaluation Factors for Award

Subfactor 1: PWS Subtask 2.7.2 Launch Services and ITU Coordination for Procured Spacecraft

The Government will evaluate subfactor 1-Launch Services and ITU Coordination for Procured Spacecraft to determine if the proposal demonstrates a clear and effective approach to managing orbit coordination responsibilities. Specifically, the evaluation will consider the Offeror’s understanding and approach in the following:

a. Launching spacecraft successfully, conducting all required orbital maneuvers to raise the spacecraft into GEO orbit, and positioning and maintaining the spacecraft in the assigned orbital slot; and

b. Managing orbital slot, coordination of ITU filings, and working with international and domestic operators to maintain safe orbital separation.

Subfactor 1 will be evaluated using a Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable rating method. To be considered Acceptable, the submission to subfactor 1 shall demonstrate the ability to meet the minimum requirements above. Proposals that fail to meet the solicitation requirements will be rated Unacceptable.

Subfactor 2: Subtask 2.7.1 – Manufacturing Maneuverable Spacecraft The Government will evaluate subfactor 2- Manufacturing Maneuverable Spacecraft to determine if the proposal demonstrates a clear and effective approach for management and development of maneuverable spacecraft. Specifically, the evaluation will consider the following:

a. A clear understanding and sound technical approach to development and manufacture of spacecraft and supporting the integration of specified payloads.

b. Whether the proposed spacecraft design supports all commercially available satellite bands and/or frequency bands reserved for Government operations, such as UHF, VHF, L, S, Ku, Ka, X and similar bands.

c. The adequacy of the proposed solution to provide the required mission services, including reliability, resiliency and operational availability.

Subfactor 2 will be evaluated using a Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable rating method. To be considered Acceptable, the submission to subfactor 2 shall demonstrate the ability to meet the minimum requirements above. Proposals that fail to meet the solicitation requirements will be rated Unacceptable.

Subfactor 3: Corporate Experience

The Government will evaluate the offerors’ relevant corporate experience based on the offeror’s demonstrated including the development, launch, and control of purpose-built GEO satellites with the capability of supporting communication and maneuverability. Subfactor 3-Corporate experience will be evaluated using a Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable rating method. To be considered Acceptable, the corporate experience submission must meet all minimum relevancy criteria defined below:

Recency-Performed within the last 3 years from the date of solicitation closing, with at least six consecutive months of performance.

Size- Comparable magnitude in contract value, personnel, and mission scale

Scope- Work is similar in functional requirements to the Functional Area 3 PWS and includes development, launch, and control of purpose-built GEO satellites with the capability of supporting communication and maneuverability.

Complexity- Comparable technical or operational difficulty of the effort, including integration, diversity of technologies or payload, communication requirements, critical mission demands, etc.

Projects that fail to meet these minimum requirements will be rated Unacceptable.

Subfactor 4: Technical Scenario PWS 2.7 Task 7 – MGEO Infrastructure Equipment

The Government will evaluate subfactor 4- MGEO Infrastructure Equipment to determine if the offeror’s response to the technical scenario provided in Section L, demonstrates an ability to apply technical knowledge, mission planning and operational and maneuvering methodologies representative of meeting PWS 2.7 task requirements. Specifically, the evaluation will consider if the proposal demonstrates an understanding and technically sound method in its plan, approach, and methodology to the following:

a. Design Approach: Soundness of the proposed spacecraft design for large-angle relocation.

b. Quality Assurance (QA): Adequacy of QA processes to ensure the spacecraft meets operational needs.

c. Mission Assurance: Effectiveness of mission assurance strategies to maintain spacecraft operability during relocations.

d. Risk Management: Soundness of risk mitigation and management approaches.

Subfactor 4 will be evaluated using a Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable rating method. To be considered Acceptable, the submission to subfactor 4 shall demonstrate the ability to meet the minimum requirements above. Proposals that fail to meet the solicitation requirements will be rated Unacceptable.

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method